Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.06.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1984 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, June 25, 1984 at 7:31 P.M. ROT.T. rAT.T. Present: Commissioners Garcia, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy, Schwalm, Taylor Absent: Commissioner Giomi (excused) Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 11, 1984 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. VARIANCE TO ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1617 LASSEN WAY, BY FRANK AND NORYNE BEST CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 413 SF bedroom/family room addition to an existing home which provides only one off-street parking space rather than two as required. Reference staff report, 6/25/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/30/84; staff review: City Engineer (6/11/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/14/84) and Fire Marshal (6/12/84); applicant's letter (5/30/84); aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed June 15, 1984; and plans date stamped June 12, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicants' justification for variance. Affirmative action must be accompanied by findings of fact. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Frank Best, applicant, told Commission they enjoy their home in this area near Lincoln School, would like to remain on this site but need the additional space. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: do not believe the proposed addition would affect the neighbors; this is one of two houses on the block which do not have two car garages; concern about no space behind the front setback to park a second car, could add another car on the street; find the plans inadequate; have no objection to the request for an addition but feel it goes beyond the limits of Commission policy in granting such variance requests, would prefer redesign; do not think the addition of another bedroom would make a difference in the number Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 25, 1984 of cars in this instance; feel there are exceptional circumstances in this property and the applicants' need for more space; staff advised present plans are sufficient for planning consideration, additional detail will be required for the building permit; possibility of a tandem garage and effect on lot coverage were discussed. C. Jacobs found this site typical of many two bedroom homes in Ray Park; that there are exceptional circumstances in the placement of the house on the lot; that the addition would not be detrimental to the neighbors nor would it adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. She moved for approval of the variance; second C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: would prefer redesign and a continuance for two weeks, so will vote no. Motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Taylor dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 572 SF GARAGE AT 2209 HALE DRIVE, BY JOHN UNDERDAHL CP Monroe reviewed this request to construct an oversized garage with windows within 10 feet of property line. Reference staff report, 6/25/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/17/84; applicant's letter, May 17, 1984; staff review: City Engineer (5/29/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/4/84) and Fire Marshal (6/5/84); study meeting minutes, June 11, 1984; 6/15/84 letter from the applicant; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed 6/15/84; and plans date stamped May 17, 1984. CP discussed details of the application, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letter and reasons for the request, study meeting questions. One condition was suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John Underdahl, applicant, stated windows could be moved 10' from property line; he would like to protect dutch elm tree in the backyard and provide 7.0' for each car parked in the new garage as well as space for a work area with wash basin; the vent was included since there had been one in the old garage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: placement of the windows; lot: coverage; there is a deep backyard although the area may look impacted from the street; new garage will allow space to store applicant's boat and allow him work area; width of garage and applicant"s desire to preserve trees in the backyard; would like to see the windows eliminated and have a concern about the vent. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May 29, 1984, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 4, 1984 and the Fire Marshal's memo of June 5, 1984 be met; (2) that. the windows be moved 10' from the property line; and (3) that the vent be installed according to code. Second C. Leahy; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 25, 1984 3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CREDIT UNION BRANCH OFFICE IN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 840 HINCKLEY ROAD, BY AMFAC MAINLAND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a credit union in an existing office building in the M-1 zone. Reference staff report, 6/25/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/8/84; letter from Donna Bosser, Amfac Credit Union, April 10, 1984; site drawing received May 8, 1984; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (6/1/84), Fire Marshal (5/15/84) and City Engineer (5/18/84); City Attorney's April 6, 1984 letter to California Credit Union League; City Attorney's letter of April 16, 1984 to Donna Bosser, President, Amfac Mainland FCU; June 11, 1984 study meeting minutes; :Bosser letter to Towber received May 8, 1984; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed June 15, 1984; Bosser letter to Towber, June 18, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Donna Bosser, applicant, addressed Commission: estimated number of Amfac employees in the M-1 District area is 276, approximately 100 of these employees are members of the credit union; most members do not come to the 840 Hinckley office, business is transacted by payroll deduction or automatic deposit; Amfac runs courier service between the different locations; most business is by mail or phone; have not impacted traffic or parking in the area. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: applicant uses leased area within the existing building; on-site parking appears to meet code; code requires a special permit for this use in the M-1 district; does not appear to be a business that would impact the area. C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the Amfac Credit Union shall operate as outlined in Donna Bosser's letter of April 10, 1984; and (2) that this use permit be reviewed for compliance with the operation as outlined in Ms. Bosser's letter in 18 months time (December, 1985). Second C. Garcia; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CLASSES AT 824 EDGEHILL DRIVE IN THE C-2 DISTRICT, BY DAVID AND SHARON CHEEK 5. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PIANO CLASSROOM/STUDIO AT 824 EDGEHILL DRIVE WHICH PROVIDES NO OFF-STREET PARKING CP Monroe reviewed this request to hold classes in the C-2 zone and to allow a four space parking variance to build a new commercial structure for use as a piano studio. Reference staff report, 6/25/84; study meeting minutes, June 11, 1984; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 4/23/84; applicant's letter, April 23, 1984; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 25, 1984 additional information on use/traffic received May 9, 1984; trip ends to/from site date stamped March 14, 1984; May 28, 1984 letter from Olga Chambers, landlord, 859 California Drive; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (5/29/84 and 5/11/84), City Engineer (5/18/84), Fire Marshal (5/9/84); aerial photograph; letters from the applicant received June 18, 1984; petition in support received June 15, 1984; letter in support from William R. Ward, Director of Music, United Methodist Church dated June 16, 1984; and plans date stamped May 24, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff review, applicant's description of the business and justification for the variance, study meeting questions, staff comment. Three conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Letters in support were noted as follows: Fred Wm. Heron, principal, McKinley School (June 18, 1984); Priscilla Storms, teacher, Burlingame School District (June 21, 1984); Philip F. Acker, Acker & Son, owner of properties at 820 Edgehill Drive and 821 California Drive (June 22, 1984); Mary Harrell, resident at 839 Edgehill Drive (received June 25, 1984). Discussion: entire block between Edgehill and California Drive is zoned C-2 commercial, there is a commercial use immediately adjacent with a driveway off Edgehill, auto repair would be allowed in this area, there is no space on site for cars to turn around, possibility of constructing the studio attached to the house, required covered parking will be provided on site for the residential structure. Sharon Cheek, applicant, discussed her proposal: has no desire to change the residential character of Edgehill; most of the students are dropped off and picked up; has been renting space and teaching piano in this same block for eight years; her studio provides many of the services which have been cut back in the schools; students perform in the schools and provide musicians for several churches; if this building were an office structure it would require less parking than the four space requirement for classes as determined by staff; she teaches during the school year with some private summer lessons; hours are 3:00 PM to 8:30 PM, at the end of the business day. Speaking to the variance request, Mrs. Cheek stated the rental of the studio she now uses is high, it would be a loss of income if she were unable to build on this property which was purchased in 1983; she would like to raise a family and locating the studio on the same site as her home would be ideal; regarding public safety, she teaches private lessons and general classes which include many of the same students, so times are staggered, there are 50-100 parking spaces across the street and two crosswalks within 100 feet of the site; doubt there would be a parking problem as a very small portion of the students drive themselves; businesses in the block have not complained nor have tenants in the building where she presently teaches; there are not many locations in the city where she can teach and many of those are not financially feasible. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Those speaking in favor: Priscilla Storms, 1232 Floribunda Avenue: this is an opportunity for the community, a young contributing citizen who will enrich the city; Burlingame —5— June 25, 1984 Planning Commission Minutes Catherine Depew, 1427 Paloma Avenue: have been a piano student since five years of age, parents drop me off and pick me up, do not need parking space; Judy Michaelian: have been driving my sons to lessons for 2/3 years, once a year might park and go inside, applicant is outstanding member of the community and outstanding teacher; Judith Kell, 1257 Cabrillo Avenue: son is a student, drop him off and pick him up, seldom park and wait. There were no further audience comments in favor. In opposition, Lorine Gandolfi, 825 Edgehill Drive expressed concern about parking on Edgehill; have no objection to parking on California Drive but because of apartment buildings there are parking problems presently on Edgehill. Applicant comment: would not want my students to park on Edgehill either. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this is a good land use, a cultural addition to the city; parking is an important aspect but don't believe this use will have an adverse impact; variance goes with the land, if this structure were converted to another permitted use the variance would go with it; possibility/advisability of a condition prohibiting parking on Edgehill; feel this is a compatible use for the area and represents an opportunity for the community. C. Taylor moved that the application for a special permit for classes in the C-2 district be approved with the following conditions: (1) that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of May 11, 1984, the City Engineer's memo of May 18, 1984 and the Fire Marshal's memo of May 9, 1984 be met; (2) that the piano studio be operated as described in Sharon Cheek's letters of April 23, 1984 and May 9, 1984; (3) that the new construction be separated from the existing residential structure and new carport on the lot by at least four feet; and (4) that no student parking be allowed on Edgehill Drive. Second C. Jacobs. Responding to Commission question about viability of the business applicant advised her net profit would be about the same the first few years if this proposed studio is approved. Motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent. C. Taylor incorporated into the record the comments of Mrs. Storms and the applicant's April 23, 1984 letter to support findings that there are exceptional circumstances, that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner, that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to the neighbors and that it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Taylor moved for approval of the variance request; second C. Jacobs. C. Schwalm commented that loss of income and raising a family are not acceptable reasons for granting a variance; he found exceptional circumstances in the way the property is laid out, this is an unusual lot, and the proposed business is a small operation which would not adversely affect the neighborhood. Motion approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes —6— June 25, 1984 6. USE DETERMINATION FOR THE SECOND FLOOR OF 205 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1, SUB -AREA B. BY JOSEPH KARP CP Monroe reviewed this request that the Planning Commission review staff's determination that the vacant second floor of the building at 205 Park Road cannot be used again as office until the off-street parking required for the vacant area is provided. Reference -staff report, 6/25/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/21/84; letter from David C. Carr, applicant's attorney (May 16, 1984); staff review: City Engineer (5/29/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/4/84), Fire Marshal (5/30/84); memo from the City Attorney (6/19/84); letter from Andrew P. Studdert, Bay View Federal Savings (May 17, 1984); study meeting minutes (June 11, 1984); basement floor plan, 205 Park/1310 Howard; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed June 15, 1984; staff report with attachments, special permit application, Bay View Federal, 4/27/81, Item No. 1; Karp letter to Towber, June 19, 1984 with attachments; and plans date stamped June 19, 1984. CP discussed the applicant's request, code regulations relating to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and to the nonconforming section of the code, staff review, City Attorney's memo reviewing the issue, letter from the applicant's attorney, study meeting questions. City staff is requesting clear direction from the Commission regarding policy when vacancy results in nonconforming parking in Sub -Areas A and B. Discussion: Council's amendment of the zoning code in February, 1982 establishing Sub -Areas A and B in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (BACA); staff's determination that the second floor of the Bay View Federal building at 205 Park cannot be used again as office until the required off-street parking for the vacant floor area is provided; staff advised this interpretation would apply if only one office on a second floor were vacant for more than six months. Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. David C. Carr, attorney representing the applicant, addressed Commission, noting that the applicant, Joseph Karp, is now the owner of this property. Attorney Carr's comments: Code Sec. 25.50.040 (nonconforming section) was amended into the code in 1962, in 1982 nothing was changed with regard to the six month provision; applicant's request is merely a determination of the proper interpretation of the six month rule as it applies to this building; find staff's interpretation to be narrow and a very conservative view of this situation; nobody disputes that office is a permitted use, but the city contends it is nonconforming on the basis of lack of off-street parking. Code Sec. 25.70.040, added in 1982, sets out exceptions and exemptions, structures which become nonconforming as a result of the adoption of parking requirements may be remodeled so long as the gross floor area is not enlarged; no time limit was imposed on vacancy for remodeling, so this would be true even after 18 months vacancy; since remodeling started when Bay View took over this site, it could be contended that remodeling is not yet completed on the second floor. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 25, 1984 Attorney Carr contended Code Sec. 25.50.040 is not applicable, and questioned whether the building is nonconforming legally; the nonconforming section applies when any building or land is not used for six months, the definition of building in the code is "any structure . . .", it would appear to refer to the entire structure at the corner of Park and Howard. City Attorney states you cannot look at the statute literally; however, if the city had intended to look at parts of buildings they could have said so in the statute, this legislation seems to refer to an entire structure. If one office becomes vacant for six months, or a room or whole floor used for storage for six months, can that portion of the structure be considered abandoned. Staff treats parking requirements as a part of the use of the property; in that case this building over the years has been nonconforming because of no parking. The second floor of this office building has been used for office use continually to the present time, the evidence shows that utilities have been on continuously, the area has been used by Bay View to store certain materials; action has been taken to comply with city requirements, a stairway was built, the area has been advertised as rental property, Bay View did not lock the doors, board up the stairway or turn off the light or heat. We contend if vacancy occurs, so long as action is not taken to eliminate the possibility of rental use, that use continues. Portions of other downtown buildings were vacant for even longer periods of time, but permitted rental office later. We feel s'taff's interpretation would be prejudicial to the rights of the property owner and would establish a dangerous precedent for the city. The statute refers to an entire structure or parcel of land, it does not apply to a portion of the building. Audience comments: Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue: urge a change in staff's manner of determination so that after a vacancy of more than six months an office would be allowed without providing parking. Joseph Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, applicant: this interpretation not only pertains to office space above the first floor in Sub -Area B but also pertains to retail stores in Sub -Area B; if a store were vacant for six months or more on Howard, that store! would be considered nonconforming and not allowed to be occupied without providing parking; am concerned about what happens in downtown Burlingame and feel the present interpretation of the code will harm the economics of the community. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment/discussion: find staff's view of this matter correct, staff needs to take a narrow view but don't think they want to discourage usage; the way to get more parking is add to the assessment district, increase the parking, public and private; parking is a condition of the land use but the ordinance is not clear as far as nonconformity is concerned, unreasonable to require this particular landowner to provide more parking; Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 25, 1984 if the code is interpreted to refer to an entire structure Burlingame could end up a ghost city, perhaps each case should be heard on its own merits and abandonment found when the major portion of the building is vacant; city was not trying to take property away from any individual, intent was to enact an ordinance so that this type of situation could be handled through the variance process, it was an attempt to address parking problems, would not want staff to be more liberal in its interpretation, city wants to retain control; think intent of the ordinance was for any new construction or change in use to provide parking, would support a broader interpretation of the code; practically impossible to provide parking downtown, support staff's interpretation and the variance procedure; :Find staff's interpretation too narrow, the code talks about a whole building or whole parcel of land, at least one-half of this building has never been abandoned; code isn't clear, this case isn't clear, to make the applicant seek a parking variance seems to be a waste of time, suggest clarification of the code so that in future staff only bring in cases where an overwhelming part of the structure is abandoned; think it's clear the ordinance is not referring to portions of a building, it is referring to an entire building. C. Taylor moved that Commission find Code Sec. 25.50.040 applies to an entire building rather than to a portion of a building. Second C. Jacobs. Comment on the motion: cannot support reference to an entire building, should refer to the major part of a building, a small portion could be kept in use by willful intent of the owners; don't think motion is taking care of what Commission is here to determine, a use determination. Motion defeated on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers Garcia, Schwalm and Graham, dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Following this action Attorney Carr requested that Commission act on the applicant's petition for a use determination on this particular piece of property, for the proposed use of the second floor of this building. C. Jacobs moved to allow office use on the second floor of the building at 205 Park Road, based on the finding it should not be considered abandoned under Code Sec. 25.50.040. Second C. Leahy; motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Graham dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1457 BELLEVUE AVENUE, UNIT NO. 3 Set for hearing July 9, 1984. 8. VARIANCE - 112 ANITA ROAD Set for hearing July 9, 1984. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE ADDITION - 40 EDWARDS COURT Set for hearing July 9, 1984. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 25, 1984 10. REVIEW OF THE REMAINDER OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN BURLINGAME AND DISCUSSION OF A MIXED USE DESIGNATION CP Monroe discussed mixed use which can be either vertical or horizontal: definition, advantages, problems and suggested wording for an amendment to the text of the General Plan. Following Commission discussion it was decided to continue mixed use consideration. Staff's 15 proposed amendments to the general plan were set for public hearing July 9, 1984. This hearing will be duly noticed in a paper of general circulation as well as to all property owners affected directly. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Towber memo to City Planner, subject special permit for psychological counseling at 1214 Donnelly Avenue. PLANNER REPORT - CP reviewed Council actions at its June 18, 1984 :regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, A. M. (Bill) Garcia Vice Chairman